Well THAT will end well...(Armed March On Washington)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Nikolaz72:

xDarc:

BiscuitTrouser:
[quote="xDarc" post="528.407475.17000055"]
Somebody needs to stand up to people who want to legislate everyone's rights away. If they get rid of the 2nd amendment, what's to stop them from taking the 1st?

Snip

You can still say whatever you want, you just have to suffer the consequences for it.

Also, what he said was that if they had removed rights to a degree in which people would object, they would have been voted out.

The reasons for the hundreds of countries with slightly-very different rights from the US in the West have not had such politicians voted out immediately, is that often people -agree- with these changes. Having certain things be rights is not always superior to the contrary.

Freedom of Speech is the certain issue that gets a lot of attention on this, in the US the pastor whom commited an action protected by free speech resulting in two dozen deaths in the middle-east went unpunished, in Europe he would have gotten jail-time.

Your freedom of speech is/should end at what will inevitably bring harm to others. Using your freedoms to limitt the freedoms of others is not a -right- and it most certainly should be illegal.

The problem is defining inevitable.

People were getting sick and injured in the peaks of the wall street protest, not because of police action or anyone preaching it, just because when you have that many people gathered together in one place, it is inevitable that someone is going to get hurt.

While there are cases where an obvious call for violence or doing something that intentionally endangers lives (shouting fire in a crowded theater) is not protected under the law.

I think it should be pretty obvious by now that the system is rigged and votes don't matter; both George Bush and Barrack Obama were more than willing to trade freedoms in the name of safety. They're two sides to the same coin. And whenever they get somebody in office who doesn't go along with the program, like John F. Kenndey or his brother has a good chance at becoming president, you know what's going to happen.

The changes to freedoms come slowly, and they generally only go in one direction, away. You have to wonder about where we will find ourselves in another 30 years assuming this logical progression towards trading liberty for safety keeps on trucking.

xDarc:
I think it should be pretty obvious by now that the system is rigged and votes don't matter; both George Bush and Barrack Obama were more than willing to trade freedoms in the name of safety. They're two sides to the same coin. And whenever they get somebody in office who doesn't go along with the program, like John F. Kenndey or his brother has a good chance at becoming president, you know what's going to happen.

The changes to freedoms come slowly, and they generally only go in one direction, away. You have to wonder about where we will find ourselves in another 30 years assuming this logical progression towards trading liberty for safety keeps on trucking.

Seems like a poor vetting process, if they wanted Kennedy away they could just scandal him like they did Nixon. Incidentally why did they remove Nixon? And who are 'they' and what is their agenda?

xDarc:
The most famous pictures you will probably see are armed black panthers at Sacramento,CA standing on the steps of the capitol.

Shock and Awe:
Not in DC, but they sure did that shit in Sacramento, the Capital of California. They just walked in with a bunch of shotguns and rifles, took a whole bunch of pictures too.

Okay, so did such gun bans exist in Scramento for the plaza before the state capitol? From what Shock and Awe wrote, it sounds like they didn't at the time.

DC's gun laws as they exist today did not come into being until 1976.

Then it's a faulty comparison in the first place. While certainly controversial and risky, it wouldn't have been illegal at the time.

Skeleon:

Then it's a faulty comparison in the first place. While certainly controversial and risky, it wouldn't have been illegal at the time.

It shouldn't be illegal now. Supreme Court ruled DC gun laws unconstitutional. DC doesn't care, they still enforce the unjust law. That's the whole point of this.

People shouldn't have to follow unjust laws that have been ruled unconstitutional.

xDarc:

Skeleon:

Then it's a faulty comparison in the first place. While certainly controversial and risky, it wouldn't have been illegal at the time.

It shouldn't be illegal now. Supreme Court ruled DC gun laws unconstitutional. DC doesn't care, they still enforce the unjust law. That's the whole point of this.

People shouldn't have to follow unjust laws that have been ruled unconstitutional.

To be fair, the Supreme Court was never created with the power of Judical Overview in mind. They gave themselves that power later on.

The Supreme Court isn't as powerful as they'd like to think they are. More and more states have been ignoring their judgements lately and suffered no repercussions, which leads to a self-perpetuating cycle. Such as DC's aforementioned gun laws and Texas' execution policies.

Kopikatsu:

xDarc:

Skeleon:

Then it's a faulty comparison in the first place. While certainly controversial and risky, it wouldn't have been illegal at the time.

It shouldn't be illegal now. Supreme Court ruled DC gun laws unconstitutional. DC doesn't care, they still enforce the unjust law. That's the whole point of this.

People shouldn't have to follow unjust laws that have been ruled unconstitutional.

To be fair, the Supreme Court was never created with the power of Judical Overview in mind. They gave themselves that power later on.

The Supreme Court isn't as powerful as they'd like to think they are. More and more states have been ignoring their judgements lately and suffered no repercussions, which leads to a self-perpetuating cycle. Such as DC's aforementioned gun laws and Texas' execution policies.

Or unjust segregation laws that were still enforced through ruled unconstitutional, for which MLK and others organized all sorts of demonstrations to non-violently resist unjust laws. Civil disobedience, this is what it looks like.

"We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good." - MLK

xDarc:

Skeleon:

Then it's a faulty comparison in the first place. While certainly controversial and risky, it wouldn't have been illegal at the time.

It shouldn't be illegal now. Supreme Court ruled DC gun laws unconstitutional. DC doesn't care, they still enforce the unjust law. That's the whole point of this.

People shouldn't have to follow unjust laws that have been ruled unconstitutional.

I'm assuming you're talking about D.C. v Heller. If that is indeed the case, then there's a correction that needs to be made here. What they ruled - by a 5-4 vote - was that that parts of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 were unconstitutional; namely the trigger lock provision[1] and the ban on possessing any handguns, automatic firearms, or high-capacity semi-automatic firearms[2]. The rationale invoked was that this prohibited the use of firearms for self defense in the home. The courts even made explicit the fact that this was a problem with that law and not a problem with gun laws/gun control in general terms. To quote that part of their conclusion directly:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition - in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute - would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

[1] which was a mandate that guns at home had to be kept unloaded, disassembled or bound by a trigger lock (or similar device)
[2] This naturally excluded those firearms purchased before the law was enacted

itsthesheppy:
The government has laser cannons.

Laser. Cannons.

So even if you managed to get your hands on a weaponized drone (something else they have, and you don't) they would just shoot it down with a fucking laser.

Your fucking magnum ain't doing shit again "tyranny" if they actually wanted to bring some against you.

This gun-fantasy wanky bullshit is so infuriating.

The government are not going to drop bombs, and shells on a city with both loyal, and Viet Cong style rebels. So good luck with using a laser on someone who is in a well hidden position.

Gergar12:
The government are not going to drop bombs, and shells on a city with both loyal, and Viet Cong style rebels. So good luck with using a laser on someone who is in a well hidden position.

A laser is much more accurate than a bomb or grenade shells.
Also, collateral damage. Not a new concept *shrug*
Also, also, even if they wouldn't use any such things, the military has plenty of other highly advanced weaponry they could use to steamroll any insurgents if need be. But even if this whole thing does turn to shit, I don't expect it to turn into an outright rebellion but at most a couple of crazies starting to shoot, heavily armed police shooting back and a bunch of the peaceful protesters getting killed in the middle of it all before all the crazies are rounded up or shot.
Lots of dead victims, a few dead terrorists. The end.

Skeleon:

Gergar12:
The government are not going to drop bombs, and shells on a city with both loyal, and Viet Cong style rebels. So good luck with using a laser on someone who is in a well hidden position.

A laser is much more accurate than a bomb or grenade shells.
Also, collateral damage. Not a new concept *shrug*
Also, also, even if they wouldn't use any such things, the military has plenty of other highly advanced weaponry they could use to steamroll any insurgents if need be. But even if this whole thing does turn to shit, I don't expect it to turn into an outright rebellion but at most a couple of crazies starting to shoot, heavily armed police shooting back and a bunch of the peaceful protesters getting killed in the middle of it all before all the crazies are rounded up or shot.
Lots of dead victims, a few dead terrorists. The end.

I was referring to someone who is rebel walking side by side with just another normal person in a city. Even if the government starts doing what syrian is doing, they who still lose.

Gergar12:

Skeleon:

Gergar12:
The government are not going to drop bombs, and shells on a city with both loyal, and Viet Cong style rebels. So good luck with using a laser on someone who is in a well hidden position.

A laser is much more accurate than a bomb or grenade shells.
Also, collateral damage. Not a new concept *shrug*
Also, also, even if they wouldn't use any such things, the military has plenty of other highly advanced weaponry they could use to steamroll any insurgents if need be. But even if this whole thing does turn to shit, I don't expect it to turn into an outright rebellion but at most a couple of crazies starting to shoot, heavily armed police shooting back and a bunch of the peaceful protesters getting killed in the middle of it all before all the crazies are rounded up or shot.
Lots of dead victims, a few dead terrorists. The end.

I was referring to someone who is rebel walking side by side with just another normal person in a city. Even if the government starts doing what syrian is doing, they who still lose.

How's the insurgency going in Afghanistan, anyway? Last I checked we were winning handily. After all, the Taliban still isn't in power. Also, the insurgency in Iraq, how did that go? Did it un-conquer that country? If we wanted complete control of Iraq, it was there for the taking. We simply didn't want it. No sooner were we there than we were looking to train up the local replacement forces.

Look, man. I understand the fantasy. That you as the scrappy underdog would stand a chance against the Evil Empire. Every single movie, TV show, cartoon, comic book and so forth have conditioned us to automatically root for and expect the victory of the scrappy underdog.

But in a purely hypothetical situation of the United States Army vs. Its Own Citizens, it's not even a contest. They have gunships, missiles, satellite-guided bombs, elite soldiers and more funding than they know what to do with. Most citizens have 9mm handguns. Maybe some have semi-automatic rifles. And... pickup trucks? I'm reaching.

It wouldn't even be a battle. Iraq had an armed populace and an army, and they couldn't do dick. What could you do? It's a fantasy, man. Come back to reality.

itsthesheppy:

Gergar12:

Skeleon:

A laser is much more accurate than a bomb or grenade shells.
Also, collateral damage. Not a new concept *shrug*
Also, also, even if they wouldn't use any such things, the military has plenty of other highly advanced weaponry they could use to steamroll any insurgents if need be. But even if this whole thing does turn to shit, I don't expect it to turn into an outright rebellion but at most a couple of crazies starting to shoot, heavily armed police shooting back and a bunch of the peaceful protesters getting killed in the middle of it all before all the crazies are rounded up or shot.
Lots of dead victims, a few dead terrorists. The end.

I was referring to someone who is rebel walking side by side with just another normal person in a city. Even if the government starts doing what syrian is doing, they who still lose.

How's the insurgency going in Afghanistan, anyway? Last I checked we were winning handily. After all, the Taliban still isn't in power. Also, the insurgency in Iraq, how did that go? Did it un-conquer that country? If we wanted complete control of Iraq, it was there for the taking. We simply didn't want it. No sooner were we there than we were looking to train up the local replacement forces.

Look, man. I understand the fantasy. That you as the scrappy underdog would stand a chance against the Evil Empire. Every single movie, TV show, cartoon, comic book and so forth have conditioned us to automatically root for and expect the victory of the scrappy underdog.

But in a purely hypothetical situation of the United States Army vs. Its Own Citizens, it's not even a contest. They have gunships, missiles, satellite-guided bombs, elite soldiers and more funding than they know what to do with. Most citizens have 9mm handguns. Maybe some have semi-automatic rifles. And... pickup trucks? I'm reaching.

It wouldn't even be a battle. Iraq had an armed populace and an army, and they couldn't do dick. What could you do? It's a fantasy, man. Come back to reality.

That's not how rebellions work, though. Yeah, if you run headlong into battle against a superior armed force, you're pretty fucked. The point of armed resistance isn't to kill the enemy, it's just to outlast them and wear them down with guerrilla warfare, attacking infrastructure, etc. That's why the Colonists won the Revolution. They didn't beat Britain, they just made it so costly and tiring that Britain surrendered and pulled back. Same deal in Vietnam. We could have easily won the Vietnam war, but it would have required basically firebombing the entire country to ash. The war was so costly and unpopular that they were forced to pull out.

I would question the wisdom of a large event like this, given the depth and variety of people that will inevitably show up. All it takes is one troublemaker or one person that wants to ruin it for everyone. There's also a fundamental law that basically says the probability for stupidity goes up as more people concentrate in an area; I'm sure there's a name for it.

However, this is not a new or even radical idea. For example, thousands of people in Utah showed up to their State capitol for events supporting gun rights, and they were carrying all variety of firearms to show commonality among all walks of life. That's not intimidation; they are citizens demonstrating for their rights. I applaud anyone coming out of the shadows and wanting their government to know that they are citizens, sick of discrimination and not being represented.

Gergar12:
The Black panthers are the basically the African American KKK.

Um... no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

The BPP is a self-defense socialist group for poor urbanites. They've had little power in decades.

itsthesheppy:

Gergar12:

Skeleon:

A laser is much more accurate than a bomb or grenade shells.
Also, collateral damage. Not a new concept *shrug*
Also, also, even if they wouldn't use any such things, the military has plenty of other highly advanced weaponry they could use to steamroll any insurgents if need be. But even if this whole thing does turn to shit, I don't expect it to turn into an outright rebellion but at most a couple of crazies starting to shoot, heavily armed police shooting back and a bunch of the peaceful protesters getting killed in the middle of it all before all the crazies are rounded up or shot.
Lots of dead victims, a few dead terrorists. The end.

I was referring to someone who is rebel walking side by side with just another normal person in a city. Even if the government starts doing what syrian is doing, they who still lose.

How's the insurgency going in Afghanistan, anyway? Last I checked we were winning handily. After all, the Taliban still isn't in power. Also, the insurgency in Iraq, how did that go? Did it un-conquer that country? If we wanted complete control of Iraq, it was there for the taking. We simply didn't want it. No sooner were we there than we were looking to train up the local replacement forces.

Look, man. I understand the fantasy. That you as the scrappy underdog would stand a chance against the Evil Empire. Every single movie, TV show, cartoon, comic book and so forth have conditioned us to automatically root for and expect the victory of the scrappy underdog.

But in a purely hypothetical situation of the United States Army vs. Its Own Citizens, it's not even a contest. They have gunships, missiles, satellite-guided bombs, elite soldiers and more funding than they know what to do with. Most citizens have 9mm handguns. Maybe some have semi-automatic rifles. And... pickup trucks? I'm reaching.

It wouldn't even be a battle. Iraq had an armed populace and an army, and they couldn't do dick. What could you do? It's a fantasy, man. Come back to reality.

What do you mean some have semi automatic rifles the ar-15 is the the United State's most popular rifle. Look at Syria the government has tanks, jets, and helicopters, but are they wining?. Also most of the military would defect, and the rebels would have the full support of the retired vets here, and some people in the U.S own 50 cal sniper rifles. It's not a fantasy, the rebels would have a very real chance of wining, and this time it would not just be South vs North. The U.s also has the HIGHEST gun to citizen ratio in the world.

Kopikatsu:

That's not how rebellions work, though. Yeah, if you run headlong into battle against a superior armed force, you're pretty fucked. The point of armed resistance isn't to kill the enemy, it's just to outlast them and wear them down with guerrilla warfare, attacking infrastructure, etc. That's why the Colonists won the Revolution. They didn't beat Britain, they just made it so costly and tiring that Britain surrendered and pulled back. Same deal in Vietnam. We could have easily won the Vietnam war, but it would have required basically firebombing the entire country to ash. The war was so costly and unpopular that they were forced to pull out.

That wouldn't happen in an American uprising though. Normally you can wear down the attacker because they don't care enough, eventually they'll say fuck it and give up. When you're both fighting for your home? Won't happen. Best comparison is the Tamil Tigers, took 26 years and only ended when the rebels had been nearly wiped out.

The civilians will just want shit to go back to normal, as long as the loyalists don't go overboard and start bombing neighbourhoods to wipe out the rebels people aren't going to support the rebels. They'd be more likely to shop the rebels to the authorities than help them.

As long as the government a) weren't total cartoon villains (pretty likely) and b) didn't go overboard in fighting the rebels (again likely) then public opinion isn't going to side with the people who are causing all the trouble.

This idea that a small guerilla war would tear down the government is ludicrous, they won't back down because it's their home as well and you'll just alienate everyone who might support your ideals but hates your methods. It would only ever end in you and your fellow fighters being decimated to the point that you surrender.

AgedGrunt:
I would question the wisdom of a large event like this, given the depth and variety of people that will inevitably show up. All it takes is one troublemaker or one person that wants to ruin it for everyone. There's also a fundamental law that basically says the probability for stupidity goes up as more people concentrate in an area; I'm sure there's a name for it.

Probably the inverse law of intelligence:

Apparent intelligence of the group = 1/number in group

Which is why you can have students (usually quite intelligent) rioting and smashing up buildings when they form large mobs.

Gergar12:
Also most of the military would defect, and the rebels would have the full support of the retired vets here,

Bases on what? Being or having been in the US armed forces does not automatically make you a traitor.

"The people" are not going to rise up against "the government". Some of the people might do so, others would support the government against the terrorists, others would just want to keep their heads down and get on with it.

Karma168:

Kopikatsu:

That's not how rebellions work, though. Yeah, if you run headlong into battle against a superior armed force, you're pretty fucked. The point of armed resistance isn't to kill the enemy, it's just to outlast them and wear them down with guerrilla warfare, attacking infrastructure, etc. That's why the Colonists won the Revolution. They didn't beat Britain, they just made it so costly and tiring that Britain surrendered and pulled back. Same deal in Vietnam. We could have easily won the Vietnam war, but it would have required basically firebombing the entire country to ash. The war was so costly and unpopular that they were forced to pull out.

That wouldn't happen in an American uprising though. Normally you can wear down the attacker because they don't care enough, eventually they'll say fuck it and give up. When you're both fighting for your home? Won't happen. Best comparison is the Tamil Tigers, took 26 years and only ended when the rebels had been nearly wiped out.

The civilians will just want shit to go back to normal, as long as the loyalists don't go overboard and start bombing neighbourhoods to wipe out the rebels people aren't going to support the rebels. They'd be more likely to shop the rebels to the authorities than help them.

As long as the government a) weren't total cartoon villains (pretty likely) and b) didn't go overboard in fighting the rebels (again likely) then public opinion isn't going to side with the people who are causing all the trouble.

This idea that a small guerilla war would tear down the government is ludicrous, they won't back down because it's their home as well and you'll just alienate everyone who might support your ideals but hates your methods. It would only ever end in you and your fellow fighters being decimated to the point that you surrender.

I never said I believed an uprising would succeed, just that it wouldn't happen via Revolution era 'Let's all form up in one big line and shoot at each other till one side is dead'.

thaluikhain:

Gergar12:
Also most of the military would defect, and the rebels would have the full support of the retired vets here,

Bases on what? Being or having been in the US armed forces does not automatically make you a traitor.

"The people" are not going to rise up against "the government". Some of the people might do so, others would support the government against the terrorists, others would just want to keep their heads down and get on with it.

Give it up mate, I have had this discussion a thousand fucking times and you can never make people who think that the American people can/would ever conduct a credible insurgency see why it is insane.

I think it stems from a kid of misplaced patriotism that makes many people think anything the Vietnamese or Afghans or Arabs can do yanks can do better. I mean come on, I am a full blown nationalist but that doesn't make me think that the Simpson could become the Korengal.

That and I think a lot of it comes from 'civvie courage' chest beating. People who go to the range one a week, maybe go hunting, and then think that that makes them credible combatants. It is the warfare equivilant of the bloke in the pub who could 'totally take' that bouncer if he really wanted to and it is about as believable as the Stakhanovites.

xDarc:

Skeleon:

Then it's a faulty comparison in the first place. While certainly controversial and risky, it wouldn't have been illegal at the time.

It shouldn't be illegal now. Supreme Court ruled DC gun laws unconstitutional. DC doesn't care, they still enforce the unjust law. That's the whole point of this.

People shouldn't have to follow unjust laws that have been ruled unconstitutional.

The constitution, being legislation, is not the be all and end all of what is just.

the clockmaker:
Give it up mate, I have had this discussion a thousand fucking times and you can never make people who think that the American people can/would ever conduct a credible insurgency see why it is insane.

I think it stems from a kid of misplaced patriotism that makes many people think anything the Vietnamese or Afghans or Arabs can do yanks can do better. I mean come on, I am a full blown nationalist but that doesn't make me think that the Simpson could become the Korengal.

That and I think a lot of it comes from 'civvie courage' chest beating. People who go to the range one a week, maybe go hunting, and then think that that makes them credible combatants. It is the warfare equivilant of the bloke in the pub who could 'totally take' that bouncer if he really wanted to and it is about as believable as the Stakhanovites.

Possibly, though there seems to be a thing where people claim something they believe in to be so obvious that everyone else does as well. Obama couldn't win the election, because it's so obvious to me he'd be a bad choice, it must be to others. When he did, well, they must have cheated, if I wouldn't vote for him, nobody else would. Similarly, if I want to overthrow the government, everyone else must as well.

In any case, yeah, I'm not really hoping to convince people who firmly believe they can overthrow the government and that the rest of the country is behind them, or that it'd be a good idea. OTOH, there's always other people in the thread.

thaluikhain:

the clockmaker:
Give it up mate, I have had this discussion a thousand fucking times and you can never make people who think that the American people can/would ever conduct a credible insurgency see why it is insane.

I think it stems from a kid of misplaced patriotism that makes many people think anything the Vietnamese or Afghans or Arabs can do yanks can do better. I mean come on, I am a full blown nationalist but that doesn't make me think that the Simpson could become the Korengal.

That and I think a lot of it comes from 'civvie courage' chest beating. People who go to the range one a week, maybe go hunting, and then think that that makes them credible combatants. It is the warfare equivilant of the bloke in the pub who could 'totally take' that bouncer if he really wanted to and it is about as believable as the Stakhanovites.

Possibly, though there seems to be a thing where people claim something they believe in to be so obvious that everyone else does as well. Obama couldn't win the election, because it's so obvious to me he'd be a bad choice, it must be to others. When he did, well, they must have cheated, if I wouldn't vote for him, nobody else would. Similarly, if I want to overthrow the government, everyone else must as well.

In any case, yeah, I'm not really hoping to convince people who firmly believe they can overthrow the government and that the rest of the country is behind them, or that it'd be a good idea. OTOH, there's always other people in the thread.

And probably because they justify having their weapons in order to keep the government honest, therefore their weapons have to be capable of beating the government in line otherwise there is no reason for civvies to own military patterned weapons and that can't be right can it?

the clockmaker:
And probably because they justify having their weapons in order to keep the government honest, therefore their weapons have to be capable of beating the government in line otherwise there is no reason for civvies to own military patterned weapons and that can't be right can it?

Well, there's always earthquakes...

As an aside, I don't normally hear people advocating civilian firearms to counter the US military advocating reductions in the US military to make it more easily countered.

thaluikhain:

the clockmaker:
And probably because they justify having their weapons in order to keep the government honest, therefore their weapons have to be capable of beating the government in line otherwise there is no reason for civvies to own military patterned weapons and that can't be right can it?

Well, there's always earthquakes...

As an aside, I don't normally hear people advocating civilian firearms to counter the US military advocating reductions in the US military to make it more easily countered.

It is because 99% of those people have a disonance between the 'Heroic fighters keeping freedom safe' overseas and the 'evil oppressors crushing freedom' domestically. Chances are, if shit went far south enough for troops on the streets, it would be the same blokes who fought in Afghan and Iraq but your average nutbag gun hoarder doesn't see that.

Except for Xdarc, he may be a gun hoarding survivalist, but he is consistent in that.

So wait, there's this armed minority that wishes to intimidate a democratically elected government, chosen by a majority of your population, and all you right wingers wish them good luck 'cuz it just so happens to be about a certain policy you care about?

Seems like your democracy is in danger, but not from the guys sitting in government. Why not let the NRA chose your next president, if guns make right.

The real question is whether the FBI will plant a shooter like at Kent State. All other concerns are rather secondary.

ravenshrike:
The real question is whether the FBI will plant a shooter like at Kent State. All other concerns are rather secondary.

Yeah. If shooting just happens regardless, that's rather secondary.

This will go down just fine. No incidents. I know you see guns and go "oh my god, scary!" but the reality is, these marches happen a lot, and have happened ESPECIALLY a lot in the past few months.

Here's one:

Tons of people, many armed, some even armed with the evil "assault rifle", marching on government buildings.

Incidents?

0.

Don't panic.

MichiganMuscle77:
This will go down just fine. No incidents. I know you see guns and go "oh my god, scary!" but the reality is, these marches happen a lot, and have happened ESPECIALLY a lot in the past few months.

Here's one:

Tons of people, many armed, some even armed with the evil "assault rifle", marching on government buildings.

Incidents?

0.

Don't panic.

Nice way to prove these rallies are dangerous due to irresponsible people who shouldn't be given a gun to begin with. Oh look at the beautiful AK-47 breaking the 2nd basic rule "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.". Unless off course he wanted to destroy one of the guys standing next to him.

generals3:

Nice way to prove these rallies are dangerous due to irresponsible people who shouldn't be given a gun to begin with. Oh look at the beautiful AK-47 breaking the 2nd basic rule "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.". Unless off course he wanted to destroy one of the guys standing next to him.

1 person = filled

I can't argue with that logic, I suppose.

MichiganMuscle77:

generals3:

Nice way to prove these rallies are dangerous due to irresponsible people who shouldn't be given a gun to begin with. Oh look at the beautiful AK-47 breaking the 2nd basic rule "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.". Unless off course he wanted to destroy one of the guys standing next to him.

1 person = filled

I can't argue with that logic, I suppose.

Chain of logic here
Anti legislation side-'check out these safe gun owners representing safe gun ownership'
Legislation side-'They are not being safe, check it out, in the video that you provided the activists are failing to exercise proper muzzle awareness.'
Anti-legilsation side-'well the people in the video are not representative'

Well done mate.

and please cut the bullshit assumption that people in favour of firearm legislation are unfamiliar with, or afraid of firearms. I use them professionally, I have spent more than a few cold nights out in the bush cuddled up to my weapon, I have bled on it, tinkered with it, remedied it when it was stopped and kept it clean and functional. Assault rifles are not evil, they are a tool which can be put to evil purposes. I have respect for them, but only the most myopic of people would assume that I am afraid of them.

And where is this panic that you speak of? Have you ever actually seen panic before, are you simply unfamiliar with the concept or do you think that calling this a dangerous and bad idea panic will somehow benefit your cause.

All most of us want is for dickheads who cannot handle the responsibility of owning a firearm to not own a firearm, like old mate 'who gives a fuck where my muzzle is pointing I HAVE RIGHTS!' in the video.

________________________________________________________________

I miss kitten, I miss the somewhat higher calibre of anti-legislation proponents that this site used to have.

MichiganMuscle77:

generals3:

Nice way to prove these rallies are dangerous due to irresponsible people who shouldn't be given a gun to begin with. Oh look at the beautiful AK-47 breaking the 2nd basic rule "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.". Unless off course he wanted to destroy one of the guys standing next to him.

1 person = filled

I can't argue with that logic, I suppose.

I realized that the word "filled" was a bit too much hence why i edited out quite quickly (apparently too late). However i think the fact you have someone with an assault rifle who breaks one of the basic rules in a pro gun ownership rally, based on the premise gun owners are responsible, to be quite ironic.

the clockmaker:

MichiganMuscle77:

generals3:

Nice way to prove these rallies are dangerous due to irresponsible people who shouldn't be given a gun to begin with. Oh look at the beautiful AK-47 breaking the 2nd basic rule "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.". Unless off course he wanted to destroy one of the guys standing next to him.

1 person = filled

I can't argue with that logic, I suppose.

Chain of logic here
Anti legislation side-'check out these safe gun owners representing safe gun ownership'
Legislation side-'They are not being safe, check it out, in the video that you provided the activists are failing to exercise proper muzzle awareness.'
Anti-legilsation side-'well the people in the video are not representative'

Well done mate.

and please cut the bullshit assumption that people in favour of firearm legislation are unfamiliar with, or afraid of firearms. I use them professionally, I have spent more than a few cold nights out in the bush cuddled up to my weapon, I have bled on it, tinkered with it, remedied it when it was stopped and kept it clean and functional. Assault rifles are not evil, they are a tool which can be put to evil purposes. I have respect for them, but only the most myopic of people would assume that I am afraid of them.

And where is this panic that you speak of? Have you ever actually seen panic before, are you simply unfamiliar with the concept or do you think that calling this a dangerous and bad idea panic will somehow benefit your cause.

All most of us want is for dickheads who cannot handle the responsibility of owning a firearm to not own a firearm, like old mate 'who gives a fuck where my muzzle is pointing I HAVE RIGHTS!' in the video.

________________________________________________________________

I miss kitten, I miss the somewhat higher calibre of anti-legislation proponents that this site used to have.

I miss a whole lot of people this site used to have. To some extend I miss Xpowderx. . .

alrightnotreally.

But he was once in a while fun to have around, every time a republican tried to argue that the Tea Party wasn't 'that' bad. He would be there to save the day by assuring everyone that yes, those people have the crazy.*

Then theres Seekster, whom despite regular (Constant) disagreements with a lot (Pretty much everyone) at least kept it civil. Yet in the end recieved enough warnings to warrant a break.

I feel as if the system has loosened their grib a whee bit, keeping the fingers off the big 'PUNISHMENT' button more than they used to. But it's really too late, too many people have been banned I feel.

It's not even as if we've lost a whole lot arguing for the left, a couple of the more 'vocal' ones certainly, but the ones we've lost the most of where the center-right/extreme-right Americans. Some of whom were crazy as all hell but also some of the more reasonable types. And it is mostly the latter I miss, disagreements without flamewar.

Aye, overall there was a whole lot more flamewar, but to be honest..I think most people have noticed by now. There was a whole lot more activity aswell, the reduction in flamewar is not so much from the increase in civility as its been the decrease of regulars, and while some might find it a welcome change. I sometimes miss the days where I got truly emotional about discussions, where I could lead longer debates over the PM-system (Truly, such a thing existed)

I could make a mediocre thread which would reach 12 pages and near 10.000 views. Nowadays you're lucky if you get 4 and a 1000.

We have 'one' thread with more than 10.000 views, and imo it's old.

To get those discussions I have to venture onto American conservative-forums. And those places is the exact other side of the spectrum, but instead of few people in disagreement its basically nobody agreeing. I have a hard enough time convincing the lot that Obama infact, Isn't a muslim. Much less convincing them that he's not the worst president they have had.

*Not to say I appreciate the crazies, Big_Willie_Styles is an example of the crazy done wrong, same opinions, less funny. If you gotta put up far-fetched polls, cherrypick data, and call the government out for Tyranny. Least you can do is go all out, so people can have a good laugh at your extend and move on rather than actually getting mad.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked